Update on Scan Pyramid project Oct 2016

[Scott Creighton]

2 hours ago, Kenemet said:

 

Kenemet: The scenario is unlikely. 

SC: The scenario isn’t mine—it is what the Coptic-Egyptian tradition tells us.

Kenemet:There are family burial vaults but each family group had their own chamber... and that's not the case here. 

SC: Not all family burials in ancient Egypt had their own burial chamber.  There are many examples in ancient Egypt of bodies being buried together in a single chamber.

Kenemet: The void (if it was intended for such) would have been constructed late enough that they could have put chambers for everyone - but that's unlikely. 

SC: Well we do not yet know the precise architecture of the void area.  There may be divisions or ‘partitions’ of sorts within it or it may simply be that the sarcophagus was regarded as sufficient.

Kenemet: In the case of the NK mummies, they were moved in haste and in secrecy and were put into existing tombs.  They did not have new tombs constructed around them.

SC: The situation facing the pyramid builders (i.e. that they believed their kingdom was in peril) would have been no less an ‘emergency’ situation as that in the NK, probably more so (assuming here that they were built for the purpose I describe).

Kenemet: Secondly, there's the problem of position.  The king is the one who will be rising on the arms of his fellow deities... but NOT on the arms of fellow Osiris-pharaohs.   Those people are already in the field of reeds. 

SC: The bodies of the ancestors would have to be protected in order to ensure, as gods, they could assist the living king bring about the rebirth of the kingdom after its demise. The gods (i.e. the deceased kings) helped to ensure the sun would rise, the Nile would flow, the crops would grow and the kingdom would flourish. Hence why it would have been vital to ensure their bodies were placed in a safe and secure location high up in the GP with no access passageways to the 'chamber'.

Kenemet:  It's the gods themselves who will reach from the sky for him.  He doesn't need others in the way of his path.  Nor did he see himself as being beneath those who preceded him.

SC: All of which kinda goes against the orthodox notion that the Great Pyramid was built as the tomb of Khufu.

But I am sure, once again, we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

SC

Edited January 5, 2018 by Scott Creighton

[mstower]

One might just as well rely on such a thing as this:

Clearly some knowledge of hieroglyphs has gone into it.  I suspect that some of the groups have been borrowed from the Nefertari scene.

M.

[mstower]

1 hour ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kenemet: The scenario is unlikely. 

SC: The scenario isn’t mine—it is what the Coptic-Egyptian tradition tells us.

Kenemet:There are family burial vaults but each family group had their own chamber... and that's not the case here. 

SC: Not all family burials in ancient Egypt had their own burial chamber.  There are many examples in ancient Egypt of bodies being buried together in a single chamber.

Kenemet: The void (if it was intended for such) would have been constructed late enough that they could have put chambers for everyone - but that's unlikely. 

SC: Well we do not yet know the precise architecture of the void area.  There may be divisions or ‘partitions’ of sorts within it or it may simply be that the sarcophagus was regarded as sufficient.

Kenemet: In the case of the NK mummies, they were moved in haste and in secrecy and were put into existing tombs.  They did not have new tombs constructed around them.

SC: The situation facing the pyramid builders (i.e. that they believed their kingdom was in peril) would have been no less an ‘emergency’ situation as that in the NK, probably more so (assuming here that they were built for the purpose I describe).

Kenemet: Secondly, there's the problem of position.  The king is the one who will be rising on the arms of his fellow deities... but NOT on the arms of fellow Osiris-pharaohs.   Those people are already in the field of reeds. 

SC: The bodies of the ancestors would have to be protected in order to ensure, as gods, they could assist the living king bring about the rebirth of the kingdom after its demise. The gods (i.e. the deceased kings) helped to ensure the sun would rise, the Nile would flow, the crops would grow and the kingdom would flourish. Hence why it would have been vital to ensure their bodies were placed in a safe and secure location high up in the GP with no access passageways to the 'chamber'.

Kenemet:  It's the gods themselves who will reach from the sky for him.  He doesn't need others in the way of his path.  Nor did he see himself as being beneath those who preceded him.

SC: All of which kinda goes against the orthodox notion that the Great Pyramid was built as the tomb of Khufu.

But I am sure, once again, we shall simply have to agree to disagree.

SC

I dare say most of us agree on one matter.  I disagree with Kenemet in this respect: I see no merit in discussing your “Hall of the Ancestors” fantasia at all.  All it is is yet another attempt to impose your agenda on the discussion.

We may note also this:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,112961

He shared it with ATS a while ago:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1189963/pg4#pid22875741

Look at me!  Look at me!  Look at me!

M.

Edited January 5, 2018 by mstower
to add something.

[mstower]

I quite like this candy-stripe Thoth, drawn by Stéphane Rossini;

The colour scheme may not be Egyptian, but the proportions are—and look at the hands.

M.

[Kenemet]

6 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kenemet: The scenario is unlikely. 

SC: The scenario isn’t mine—it is what the Coptic-Egyptian tradition tells us.

The Copts had a whole lot of traditions that the ancient Egyptians did not.  In fact, they kept very few of the Egyptian traditions because they were "pagan."  These were the people who destroyed many monuments of the ancients and many artifacts because they were blasphemous.  You will have to show evidence throughout Egyptian history that this happened and that the Copts preserved it.  Otherwise, it is at best dubious and might even be a substitution by the Copts to change a "pagan" practice to something more Christian and acceptable.

Quote

Kenemet:There are family burial vaults but each family group had their own chamber... and that's not the case here. 

SC: Not all family burials in ancient Egypt had their own burial chamber.  There are many examples in ancient Egypt of bodies being buried together in a single chamber.

Kenemet: The void (if it was intended for such) would have been constructed late enough that they could have put chambers for everyone - but that's unlikely. 

SC: Well we do not yet know the precise architecture of the void area.  There may be divisions or ‘partitions’ of sorts within it or it may simply be that the sarcophagus was regarded as sufficient.

We know that it appears irregular and it slopes.  You're hardly going to build a storage chamber that slopes (makes things easy to put in, mind you, but difficult to place properly)

Quote

Kenemet: In the case of the NK mummies, they were moved in haste and in secrecy and were put into existing tombs.  They did not have new tombs constructed around them.

SC: The situation facing the pyramid builders (i.e. that they believed their kingdom was in peril) would have been no less an ‘emergency’ situation as that in the NK, probably more so (assuming here that they were built for the purpose I describe).

Do you have any evidence of this contemporary with the age of the pyramids?  In fact, do you have any evidence (contemporary with the New Kingdom) that the people of the New Kingdom believed there was an imminent disaster?  Arabic sources from a thousand years later don't count, nor do the Copts (which are almost 500 years later.)

Quote

Kenemet: Secondly, there's the problem of position.  The king is the one who will be rising on the arms of his fellow deities... but NOT on the arms of fellow Osiris-pharaohs.   Those people are already in the field of reeds. 

SC: The bodies of the ancestors would have to be protected in order to ensure, as gods, they could assist the living king bring about the rebirth of the kingdom after its demise. The gods (i.e. the deceased kings) helped to ensure the sun would rise, the Nile would flow, the crops would grow and the kingdom would flourish. Hence why it would have been vital to ensure their bodies were placed in a safe and secure location high up in the GP with no access passageways to the 'chamber'.

As far as I'm aware, the tombs of Den, Narmer, Hor-Aha, and others were intact at the time.  Do you have any evidence that they had been destroyed or looted during any time before the 4th dynasty?

Quote

Kenemet:  It's the gods themselves who will reach from the sky for him.  He doesn't need others in the way of his path.  Nor did he see himself as being beneath those who preceded him.

SC: All of which kinda goes against the orthodox notion that the Great Pyramid was built as the tomb of Khufu.

I have no idea why you think this is not consistent with the notion that the Great Pyramid is Khufu's tomb.

 

 

 

[Kenemet]

6 hours ago, mstower said:

One might just as well rely on such a thing as this:

Clearly some knowledge of hieroglyphs has gone into it.  I suspect that some of the groups have been borrowed from the Nefertari scene.

M.

Yeah... I like the "words spoken by the great gods, female scribe"... and the use of the "n" as a divider between groups of hieroglyphs.  Because the Egyptians totally did that (NOT!)

[Kenemet]

6 hours ago, mstower said:

I dare say most of us agree on one matter.  I disagree with Kenemet in this respect: I see no merit in discussing your “Hall of the Ancestors” fantasia at all.  All it is is yet another attempt to impose your agenda on the discussion.

We may note also this:

http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,112961

He shared it with ATS a while ago:

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1189963/pg4#pid22875741

Look at me!  Look at me!  Look at me!

M.

Well, that's a short-cut.  I see that people are asking the same kinds of questions I would have asked. 

[Windowpane]

5 hours ago, mstower said:

I quite like this candy-stripe Thoth, drawn by Stéphane Rossini;

The colour scheme may not be Egyptian, but the proportions are—and look at the hands.

M.

 

Does anyone else think he looks as if he's wearing Bermuda shorts?

 

[Harte]

58 minutes ago, Windowpane said:

 

Does anyone else think he looks as if he's wearing Bermuda shorts?

He's an ibis.

Probably swim trunks.

Harte

[Scott Creighton]

17 hours ago, Kenemet said:

 

Kenemet: The Copts had a whole lot of traditions that the ancient Egyptians did not.  In fact, they kept very few of the Egyptian traditions because they were "pagan." 

SC: The Copts claim ancient Egyptian ancestry. They kept a tradition that tells us that the pyramids were built as ‘Recovery Vaults’ (my term) into which the ancient Egyptians placed everything (including the bodies of their ancestor kings) that the kingdom would need to ensure its rebirth after the deluge had abated. That’s what the Coptic-Egyptian tradition tells us. You can disagree with it, of course, but that won’t mean it is actually wrong.

Kenemet: These were the people who destroyed many monuments of the ancients and many artifacts because they were blasphemous. 

SC: How many pyramids did they destroy? If anything, the Coptic-Egyptians are fiercely proud of their cultural heritage and have themselves been persecuted as a result of it for centuries if not millennia.

Kenemet: You will have to show evidence throughout Egyptian history that this happened and that the Copts preserved it. 

SC: No, I don’t have to do any of that. The texts exist and are attributed to the Coptic-Egyptian tradition. (See Vyse, ‘Operations’ Vol 2, p.322).

Kenemet: Otherwise, it is at best dubious and might even be a substitution by the Copts to change a "pagan" practice to something more Christian and acceptable.

SC: Certainly it can be considered dubious. ‘Dubious’ does not make it wrong.

Kenemet: The void (if it was intended for such) would have been constructed late enough that they could have put chambers for everyone - but that's unlikely. 

SC: Well we do not yet know the precise architecture of the void area.  There may be divisions or ‘partitions’ of sorts within it or it may simply be that the sarcophagus was regarded as sufficient.

Kenemet: We know that it appears irregular and it slopes.  You're hardly going to build a storage chamber that slopes (makes things easy to put in, mind you, but difficult to place properly)

SC: You consider a people who could construct something as complex as the Great Pyramid would struggle to place some stone boxes in a sloping chamber? Tell me you’re not serious.

Kenemet: In the case of the NK mummies, they were moved in haste and in secrecy and were put into existing tombs.  They did not have new tombs constructed around them.

SC: The situation facing the pyramid builders (i.e. that they believed their kingdom was in peril) would have been no less an ‘emergency’ situation as that in the NK, probably more so (assuming here that they were built for the purpose I describe).

Kenemet: Do you have any evidence of this contemporary with the age of the pyramids? 

SC: Let me answer that by asking if you have any evidence contemporary with the age of the first pyramids that state categorically these structures were conceived as tombs for kings? No? Do you even have texts from later periods that state categorically that the first pyramids were conceived as tombs for kings? No?

And yet you expect me to present such contemporary evidence. The one thing my argument DOES have which the tomb theory doesn’t is a Coptic-Egyptian tradition that states the pyramids were conceived, not as tombs, but as ‘Recovery Vaults’ (or ‘Arks’ if you prefer) to assist the kingdom in recovering from a deluge they believed was imminent and which would utterly destroy their kingdom. There is much more secondary evidence to support the ‘Recovery Vault’ theory but that’s for another time.

Kenem,et: In fact, do you have any evidence (contemporary with the New Kingdom) that the people of the New Kingdom believed there was an imminent disaster? 

SC: See above.

Kenemet: Arabic sources from a thousand years later don't count, nor do the Copts (which are almost 500 years later.)

SC: They “don't count” to you only because they describe a purpose for the pyramids that you simply disagree with. I am certain, however, that if this Coptic-Egyptian tradition had said these first pyramids were conceived as tombs for kings you would be more than happy to cite them. It is merely because they contradict the orthodox narrative that they are to be dismissed, that they “don’t count”. I beg to differ.

But do not misunderstand my position here. I suspect that some AE kings may well have (stupidly it has to be said) used some of the pyramids as their tomb. But the primary function of these first pyramids was, imo, as a recovery system for the kingdom—the ‘womb of the kingdom’ rather than the ‘tomb of the king’.

Kenemet: As far as I'm aware, the tombs of Den, Narmer, Hor-Aha, and others were intact at the time.  Do you have any evidence that they had been destroyed or looted during any time before the 4th dynasty?

SC: Where are their mummies? The earliest ancient Egyptian mummified king we have found is that of Merenre-Nemtyemsaf from the 6^th dynasty. The tombs of Den, Narmer, Hor-Aha have apparently been raided and robbed several times over. Perhaps the first of these ‘robberies’ was to remove the body and inter them within the ‘Void’ of the GP?

Kenemet:  It's the gods themselves who will reach from the sky for him.  He doesn't need others in the way of his path.  Nor did he see himself as being beneath those who preceded him.

SC: All of which kinda goes against the orthodox notion that the Great Pyramid was built as the tomb of Khufu.

Kenemet: I have no idea why you think this is not consistent with the notion that the Great Pyramid is Khufu's tomb.

SC: First of all the Coptic-Egyptian tradition tells us that Surid built the GP. Lehner has suggested that Surid may be a corruption of Suphis thus Surid and Khufu may be one and the same (according to Lehner). Or they may not.

Secondly, imo, these pyramids were not conceived as tombs for AE kings but rather as ‘Recovery Vaults’ for the kingdom. As such, I do not expect that Surid/Khufu(?) would have been interred within the GP’s accessible chambers (these would have been for the storage of recovery items). If Surid/Khufu(?) had died when the roof of the ‘Void’ was still open (i.e. the GP was not yet complete) then I suppose he could have been interred therein along with his ancestor kings to be called upon by his successor to assist in bringing about the rebirth of the kingdom. But I doubt that. I suspect the pyramid was completed in Surid/Khufu’s lifetime (thus the ‘Void chamber’ would have been sealed). I suspect Surid/Khufu(?) would have arranged for himself an underground burial similar to that which he arranged for his own mother.

SC

[Windowpane]

3 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

SC: First of all the Coptic-Egyptian tradition tells us that Surid built the GP. Lehner has suggested that Surid may be a corruption of Suphis thus Surid and Khufu may be one and the same (according to Lehner).

As you must no doubt have seen, Lehner (40) is citing (247) “The Origins of the Arabic Legends of the Pyramids” from the Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 23, no. 3 (1970).  Some of the evidence used by Fodor is discussed here.

According to Manetho, the Great Pyramid was built by Suphis (the Cheops of Herodotus) (Fr. 14, 2; Fr. 15 [Syncellus/Eusebius]; Fr. 16; n. 57: 2.)

And from here:

Quote

Among the texts that the Arabs acquired was, according to scholars of Arab historical writing, a Syriac version of Manetho, who had written that the Great Pyramid had been built by Suphis, who had conceived a contempt for the gods and, in penitence, wrote the Sacred Book. Since the pyramids were the House of Hermes but Manetho said that they were built by Suphis, then it stood to reason that this Hermes must actually have been Suphis, which in Syriac might (we don’t know) have been transliterated incorrectly as Suphid or Suris, or Surid.  

So Lehner is not making an original claim: he is relying on other scholars.

[Kenemet]

5 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kenemet: The Copts had a whole lot of traditions that the ancient Egyptians did not.  In fact, they kept very few of the Egyptian traditions because they were "pagan." 

SC: The Copts claim ancient Egyptian ancestry. They kept a tradition that tells us that the pyramids were built as ‘Recovery Vaults’ (my term) into which the ancient Egyptians placed everything (including the bodies of their ancestor kings) that the kingdom would need to ensure its rebirth after the deluge had abated. That’s what the Coptic-Egyptian tradition tells us. You can disagree with it, of course, but that won’t mean it is actually wrong.

First: the Copts aren't "ancient Egyptian ancestry."

They started in Alexandria, which is NOT an ancient Egyptian city but rather a Greek city of Greek nobles and Greek hegeonomy sited on the Mediterranean coast (at the edge of the delta.)  The people of the area are not pure Egyptian but rather a mixed bag of people who came to Egypt's royal city to do business.  By the time the Coptic tradition was founded, Egyptian tradition had been changed by the Ptolemies, by the Persians, and many others.  Christianity attracted many wealthy people (St. Mark, who proselytized the area, was a Hebrew from a Greco-Roman area.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copts#Foundation_of_the_Christian_Church_in_Egypt

The Alexandrian church was an eager proselytizer and "correcter" of sins.  They became one of the most prominent Catholic churches in the world... but none of their traditions are ancient Egyptian - they violently rejected the things of ancient Egypt as pagan... as you yourself saw looking at all the damage and defacement to the gods on the temple walls done by the Copts all over Egypt.  They tore down structures and mined the pyramids for stone for their churches.  They wrote Christian graffiti over Egyptian monuments (the Temple at Philae has a LOT of this).

In the 1920's, a tradition arose among the Copts themselves that they were the inheritors of the Pharonic tradition (as they broke away from British rule.)  This does not mean it's truth.

So, rather that looking at Medieval Coptic statements, you should look at older material from the Egyptians themselves (or from travelers... even Herodotus wrote that the pyramids were known to be kings' tombs and not storage for anything.)  

Now something like Djoser's tomb could arguably be meant for storage ... and there was a lot of space there... but none of the Giza pyramids has anything like the floor plan of Djoser's complex (which would have been much simpler to build, easier to access, and can hold far more material than all three of the Giza pyramids themselves and is situated far above the Nile.

 

Quote

Kenemet: We know that it appears irregular and it slopes.  You're hardly going to build a storage chamber that slopes (makes things easy to put in, mind you, but difficult to place properly)

SC: You consider a people who could construct something as complex as the Great Pyramid would struggle to place some stone boxes in a sloping chamber? Tell me you’re not serious.

Kenemet: In the case of the NK mummies, they were moved in haste and in secrecy and were put into existing tombs.  They did not have new tombs constructed around them.

SC: The situation facing the pyramid builders (i.e. that they believed their kingdom was in peril) would have been no less an ‘emergency’ situation as that in the NK, probably more so (assuming here that they were built for the purpose I describe).

 

They did not place sarcophagi and coffins in sloping areas in the tomb.  They leveled the floors, nice and flat.  If the "void" was made for sarcophagi, it's going to be flat like every other tomb in Egypt.  And if you're going to move bodies, then why are you stopping a 20 year building project to spend half a year making a chamber for them and then stuffing them in there (where everyone can see, where accidents can happen (dropping coffins and chests and jewelry on the way up to the distant area)) rather than having them moved to a nice mastaba that was already built or taking over the tomb of someone convicted of a crime (as happened to the tomb of the vizir Rawer, apparently convicted of crimes under Pepi I)

And let's ask "whose bodies?"  There's no evidence that Djoser or Seneb were shuffled out of their tombs... or that their queens were moved by Khufu or his sons or grandsons.)  And during the (nearly) hundred year time period when that area of Giza was involved in pyramid-ing, the work force could have built a lot of smaller pyramids (as they did for the queens) for these divine ancestors.  And it would be a lot easier to install ancestors in these small divine pyramids rather than trying to haul them over halfway up a steep pyramid side to an unfinished room (you can't get the coffins in with the roof on) and protect everything while the workers then... move huge slabs of rock over the top of these precious ancestors and hope nobody drops anything?

 

Makes no sense.

Quote

Kenemet: Arabic sources from a thousand years later don't count, nor do the Copts (which are almost 500 years later.)

SC: They “don't count” to you only because they describe a purpose for the pyramids that you simply disagree with. I am certain, however, that if this Coptic-Egyptian tradition had said these first pyramids were conceived as tombs for kings you would be more than happy to cite them. It is merely because they contradict the orthodox narrative that they are to be dismissed, that they “don’t count”. I beg to differ.

Well, you're dismissing Herodotus and others who say they're tombs - sources that are 500 years older than the Copts.

[Kenemet]

2 hours ago, Windowpane said:

As you must no doubt have seen, Lehner (40) is citing (247) “The Origins of the Arabic Legends of the Pyramids” from the Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientarium Hungaricae 23, no. 3 (1970).  Some of the evidence used by Fodor is discussed here.

According to Manetho, the Great Pyramid was built by Suphis (the Cheops of Herodotus) (Fr. 14, 2; Fr. 15 [Syncellus/Eusebius]; Fr. 16; n. 57: 2.)

And from here:

So Lehner is not making an original claim: he is relying on other scholars.

I'd say that Manetho (who is probably as much Egyptian as the Copts) is making the earlier claim, here.  And he seems to think it's a tomb.

[mstower]

8 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

Kenemet: You will have to show evidence throughout Egyptian history that this happened and that the Copts preserved it. 

SC: No, I don’t have to do any of that. . . .

So, you post here repeatedly with no better object than to announce your self-exemption from the ordinary standards of scholarly debate, while at the same time having the gall and effrontery to raise your mere opinionation to the status of a default, which the rest of use must knock down in the ordinary way, with evidence and argument.

Right.  Got that.

Actually, Creighton, Kenemet is perfectly entitled to insist on these standards—and, at a coarser level, to call you on your “I just don’t see” bull and respond in kind.

8 hours ago, Scott Creighton said:

. . . The texts exist and are attributed to the Coptic-Egyptian tradition. (See Vyse, ‘Operations’ Vol 2, p.322).

Your citing Vyse on this or any other question takes hypocrisy to another level.

M.

[Jarocal]

20 minutes ago, mstower said:

 

Your citing Vyse on this or any other question takes hypocrisy to another level.

M.

Apparently that was not written with red paint...

[kmt_sesh]

I never thought of it myself, but the potential sloping nature of the void is a critical point. It's not like I've memorized every tomb ever investigated, but I can't think of an instance of a sloping burial chamber.

[Kenemet]

4 hours ago, mstower said:

So, you post here repeatedly with no better object than to announce your self-exemption from the ordinary standards of scholarly debate, while at the same time having the gall and effrontery to raise your mere opinionation to the status of a default, which the rest of use must knock down in the ordinary way, with evidence and argument.

Actually, he said he was going to hold himself to the same standards as Egyptologists.  So far, he's failed to meet those standards (or even the standards of a university paper... and I'm sure he will be quite aware of that if he thinks about it.)

A paper written for class would fail if the student did not cite sources, understand why a primary source is more valuable than secondary or tertiary source (particularly if the only reason for a tertiary source is to promote an idea that was not present in the original source), and understand the importance of documenting statements.  He's also not finding very complete sources or even the most recent sources.

That would get dinged all to heck by any teacher I've written any sort of paper for (from literature to computer science.

Now... it's perfectly fine for someone on a message board do do what they like.  But he's playing with people who do know the above and consistently prove that they do understand the material and sources and so forth... leaving the impression that he can't play in the same sort of league as Kmt_Sesh et al.

[Jarocal]

1 hour ago, kmt_sesh said:

I never thought of it myself, but the potential sloping nature of the void is a critical point. It's not like I've memorized every tomb ever investigated, but I can't think of an instance of a sloping burial chamber.

It wasn't a burial chamber. It was a storage area to hold the ancestors in the recovery vault. 

[cormac mac airt]

29 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

It wasn't a burial chamber. It was a storage area to hold the ancestors in the recovery vault. 

Yeah, because you want dead people in the same place you house seeds.   Does that make the AE the original ‘pod-people’ a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers? 

cormac

[kmt_sesh]

23 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Yeah, because you want dead people in the same place you house seeds.   Does that make the AE the original ‘pod-people’ a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers? 

cormac

Eww. Can you see that advertisement? "Every loaf of bread and every bowl of gruel contains 5% authentic bits of Pharaoh!"

[cormac mac airt]

48 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

Eww. Can you see that advertisement? "Every loaf of bread and every bowl of gruel contains 5% authentic bits of Pharaoh!"

The darker parts increase stamina. 

cormac

[Jarocal]

9 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

Yeah, because you want dead people in the same place you house seeds.   Does that make the AE the original ‘pod-people’ a la Invasion of the Body Snatchers? 

cormac

But they are not in the same place. The seeds were in the more easily accessible Area while the mummies were in the recently discovered chamber.

[mstower]

9 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Actually, he said he was going to hold himself to the same standards as Egyptologists.  So far, he's failed to meet those standards (or even the standards of a university paper... and I'm sure he will be quite aware of that if he thinks about it.)

Which goes to show that the standards he attributes to Egyptologists are undemanding ones (which doesn’t stop him citing Egyptologists—or alleged Egyptologists—when it suits him).

His attitude is one which some might call “postmodern”.  (I would not credit him with anything so highbrow.)  Running through it is a deep cynicism about the possibility of knowledge, such that what he makes up is “just as good” as what the Egyptologists say.

I doubt he has ever writen a university paper, which may explain a lot.

M.

[mstower]

13 minutes ago, Jarocal said:

But they are not in the same place. The seeds were in the more easily accessible Area while the mummies were in the recently discovered chamber.

The seeds were to be planted by reanimated mummies.

M.

[cormac mac airt]

3 hours ago, Jarocal said:

But they are not in the same place. The seeds were in the more easily accessible Area while the mummies were in the recently discovered chamber.

Or were they? 

cormac